A    __^_ , 

MEMORANDUM 

TO  THE 

PRESIDENT  AND  DIRECTORS 

OF 

BRYN  MAWR  COLLEGE 


■€30" 


In  Behalf  of 
MARGERY  BARKER 


1 

ii 

be 


Tlie  foUowLo?  letter  and  tlie  accoiupanjrlii^r  xuezuorandtuu  was  sent 
to  the  President  and  to>  eaoli  member  of  tlie  Board  of  Directors  of  Bryn 
Mawr  Colleg-e  prior  to  the  meeting*  of  the  Board  on  May  20th,  1921. 

Despite  the  fact  that  IMCr.  Bnst  was  readily  accesslhle  his  reqnest  for 
a  hearin£f  was  Ignored  hy  the  Board. 


Pittsburgh,  Pa.,  May  17,  1921. 


I  hand  you  herewith  copy  of  memorandum  in  behalf  of  Miss 
Margery  Barker,  copy  of  which  I  am  sendijng  to  each  one  of  the  Board 
of  Directors  of  Bryn  Mawr  College.  I  would  greatly  appreciate  it  if 
you  would  kindly  read  this  paper  over  carefully  and  take  this  subject 
up  for  formal  action  at  your  Board  meeting  on  the  20th.  I  will  be  at 
the  Bellevue-Stratford  Hotel  on  Thursday  and  Friday  and  earnestly 
request  that  you  give  me  an  opportunity  to  appear  before  your  Board 
for  a  discussion  of  this  very  important  matter  before  final  action  is  taken. 

Before  I  became  interested  in  this  subject  Mrs.  Barker  had  re- 
tained Counsel;  intending  to  take  the  matter  into  Court  as  the  College 
management  had  refused  to  further  investigate  or  to  reconsider  its 
action.  Mrs.  Barker  and  her  daughter  both  agreed  that,  in  considera- 
tion of  my  taking  the  matter  up,  they  would  suspend  all  legal  action 
until  I  had  a  reasonable  time  to  clear  up  the  situation  without  the  in- 
tervention of  the  Courts.  They  also  agreed  that  if  I  were  convinced 
that  Margery  was  guilty,  and  properly  dismissed,  they  would  take  no 
further  action. 

In  an  interview  with  Mr.  White  he  stated  to  me  that  he  felt  that 
if  I  had  talked  personally  with  the  Misses  Kennard,  Cadot  and  Foot 
that  I  would  be  convinced  of  Miss  Barker's  guilt.  I  asked  permission 
to  meet  these  young  ladies  for  a  free  and  full  discussion,  but  he  felt 
he  could  not  agree  to  this.  Had  I  been  permitted  to  interview  these 
young  ladies,  I  feel  quite  certain  that,  instead  of  being  convinced  of 
Miss  Barker's  guilt,  other  facts  would  have  been  developed  that  would 
tend  to  prove  conclusively  that  the  whole  thing  has  been  handled  in  a 
very  unfair  and  irregular  way. 

Every  move  that  Miss  Barker  has  made  since  this  unfortunate 
occurence  has  been  to  her  credit;  clean  and  conclusive  of  innocence. 

Miiss  Kennard  was  not  at  that  time  a  member  of  the  Board  of 
the  Students  Association  for  Self  Government.  The  Students  Asso- 
ciation for  Self  Government  was  not  a  party  to  this  transaction  at  all 
and  I  am  told  that  they  refused  to  endorse  Miss  Barker's  dismissal. 
The  stealing  is  still  going  on. 

Since  Miss  Barker  has  protested  that  she  was  not  guilty  and  has 
taken  steps  to  prove  her  innocence,  the  College  has  appeared  to  resent 
any  attempt  on  her  part  to  prove  her  innocence  and  has  thrown  every 
obstacle  in  her  way  to  prevent  her  securing  evidence  of  her  innocence. 
Students  who  have  made  appointments  to  see  her  have  been  prevented 
from  keeping  those  appointments. 

The  College  has  been  placed  in  a  position  that  indicates  clearly 
that,  in  the  judgment  of  the  management,  it  is  much  more  important 
to  prove  the  College  has  not  made  a  mistake  than  it  is  to  prove  one 
of  its  students  is  not  a  thief. 

Yours  very  truly, 

H.  B.  Rust. 


Pittsburgh,  Pa.,  May  12, 1921. 

To  the  President  and  Directors  of 
Bryn  Mawr  College. 

Ladies  and  Gentleman  : 

Acting  on  the  suggestion  of  one  of  your  number,  I 
have  prepared  a  statement  regarding  the  ease  of  Miss 
Margery  Barker,  which  I  respectfully  submit  herewith. 
The  facts  set  forth  in  this  statement  agree,  so  far  as  I 
have  been  able  to  check  them,  with  those  given  me  by 
Mr.  White,  except  in  a  few  details  on  which  I  have 
learned  he  was  misinformed. 

Due  to  the  college's  attitude,  I  have  not  had  access 
to  certain  witnesses  in  the  matter ;  but  I  have  given  the 
subject  a  great  deal  of  attention  and  have  investigated 
the  case  as  thoroughly  as  possible  in  an  effort  to  arrive 
at  the  truth. 

Prior  to  four  months  ago,  I  had  never  heard  of  Miss 
Barker  or  her  family.  Having  met  my  daughter,  who 
is  a  Freshman  at  Bryn  Mawr  College,  she  visited  my 
house  for  eight  days  in  January.  I  have  taken  an  in- 
terest in  this  matter  at  the  request  of  Miss  Barker 
and  her  Mother.  I  have  felt  that  she  was  not  equipped 
to  combat  the  situation  without  assistance.  During 
the  last  few  weeks  I  have  seen  a  great  deal  of  her  and 
feel  that  I  know  her  very  well.  In  my  estimation  she 
is  decidedly  above  the  average  in  intelligence  and 
integrity.  I  am  convinced  that  a  serious  mistake  has 
been  made  and  that  Miss  Barker  is  entirely  innocent 


of  the  alleged  offense  for  wMch  she  has  heen  dismissed 
from  Bryn  Mawr  College. 

This  is  a  very  serious  matter.  A  similar  occur- 
rence in  another  college  led  to  the  suicide  of  the  girl 
who  was  accused.  I  earnestly  urge  that  each  of  you 
think  first  how  you  would  feel  if  a  daughter  of  yours, 
whom  you  knew  to  be  absolutely  innocent  and  most 
worthy,  had  been  treated  as  Miss  Barker  has  been 
treated,  and,  in  consideration  of  her  and  in  order  to 
protect  the  good  name  of  Bryn  Mawr,  that  steps  be 
taken  immediately  to  see  that  she  is  reinstated  and  an 
announcement  made  to  the  student  body  that  a  mistake 
has  been  made  in  her  case  which  the  college  deeply 
regrets. 

Miss  Barker  has  documentary  evidence  covering 
all  of  the  essential  facts  in  this  memorandum,  which  I 
have  endeavored  to  make  as  short  as  consistent  with 
an  adequate  presentation  of  the  subject.  For  your  con- 
venience I  have  had  the  memorandum  printed. 

Thanking  you  for  the  courtesies  which  I  have  re- 
ceived at  the  hands  of  all  of  you  whom  I  have  had  an 
opportunity  to  meet,  believe  me, 

Yours  very  truly, 

H.  B.  Rust. 


MARGERY  BARKER. 

Family :  ' 

Margery  Barker  is  20  years  of  age.  She  was  raised 
on  a  small  farm  three  miles  from  Michigan  City,  In- 
diana, comes  of  good  stock  and  is  well  connected.  Her 
mother  pays  for  her  tuition  and  board  and  gives  her  an 
allowance  of  f  100  per  month,  which  is  supposed  to 
cover  her  pleasures,  incidental  expenditures  and  clothes 
while  at  college.  In  addition  to  this,  her  mother  gives 
her  additional  money  from  time  to  time  and  pays  half 
of  her  traveling  expenses.  Her  mother  does  not  have 
a  large  income,  but  one  ample  to  pay  for  Margery's 
education  and  give  her  everything  she  needs  or  wants. 
The  connection  is  a  wealthy  one.  The  financial  status 
of  her  family  is  such  as  to  make  dishonesty  on  her  part 
altogether  unnecessary  and  unlikely. 

Preparation  for  College: 

As  is  the  case  in  most  country  districts,  the  educa- 
tional facilities  at  her  home  were  not  good,  therefore, 
until  about  six  years  ago,  Margery  did  not  have  the  edu- 
cational advantages  of  a  girl  living  in  a  city.  Ever 
since  she  was  12  years  old,  her  great  ambition  has  been 
to  be  a  graduate  of  Bryn  Mawr  College.  Preparation 
for  entrance  to  this  or  other  Eastern  colleges  being  in- 
adequate in  her  home  community,  tutors  were  employed 
by  her  family.  She  attended  the  Brearley  School  in 
New  York  for  two  years,  then  the  Misses  Kirk  school 
at  Bryn  Mawr  and  the  Bryn  Mawr  Camp.  At  all  of 
these  places  she  had  an  excellent  record,  especially  for 
integrity.  She  entered  Bryn  Mawr  as  a  freshman  at 
mid  year,  1920,  under  something  of  a  handicap,  as  re- 
gards previous  school  preparation. 

3  i 


During  the  past  few  years  she  has  had  a  great  deal 
of  trouble.  Her  only  brother  was  seriously  injured  in 
an  automobile  accident  a  few  months  ago,  and  this  and 
other  things  she  felt  very  keenly.  At  times  during  the 
past  year  she  has  been  depressed,  but  not  more  than 
would  be  expected  of  any  normal  sensitive  girl. 

Visit  to  Pittsburgh : 

She  visited  my  home  in  Pittsburgh  for  8  days  dur- 
ing Mid  Year  examinations  in  January,  1921.  Although 
we  live  very  quietly,  she  seemed  to  enjoy  her  visit  thor- 
oughly. She  was  very  enthusiastic  about  Bryn  Maw^r 
and  talked  a  great  deal  of  her  life  at  college  and  her 
friends  there.  What  she  told  me  tended  to  intensify 
the  good  opinion  I  had  already  formed  of  Bryn  Mawr. 

While  in  Pittsburgh,  she  impressed  everyone  whom 
she  met  as  being  an  unusually  sensitive,  tactful,  simple, 
unpretentious,  nice,  clear-headed  girl,  apparently  giving 
little  thought  to  clothes  and  things  of  that  character, 
and  not  given  to  gossip  or  making  unkind  remarks 
about  others.  After  she  went  back  to  college,  she  w^rote 
an  unusually  nice  and  appreciative  letter  to  us. 

Personal  Impression  of  Her: 

Since  her  trouble  at  Bryn  Mawr  has  occurred,  I 
have  seen  a  great  deal  of  Margery  and  have  had  many 
interviews  with  her,  varying  from  a  few  minutes  to  four 
or  ^Ye  hours  at  a  time.  I  have  put  her  through  several 
severe  and  grilling  examinations,  with  the  result  that 
the  good  opinion  I  had  formed  of  her  has  increased. 

In  my  conversations  with  her  it  was  my  natural 
feeling  to  question  the  motives  of  the  three  girls  who 
had  been  largely  instrumental  in  bringing  this  terrible 
trouble  on  her.    Margery  insisted  that  these  three  girls 


were  all  nice  girls,  that  she  did  not  know  Miss  Cadot  so 
w^ell,  but  did  know  the  other  two  girls  and  was  sure 
they  w^ere  conscientious,  high  €lass  girls.  She  spoke  well 
of  every  other  person  involved  in  the  matter  at  Bryn 
Mawr,  saying  that  she  was  positive  that  they  were  thor- 
oughly convinced  that  she  was  guilty,  that  there  was 
nothing  malicious  in  their  attitude,  but  that  they  had 
made  a  horrible  mistake. 

Margery  spoke  in  the  highest  terms  of  President 
Thomas,  saying  that  she  had  only  met  her  once  before 
this  occurence,  and  that  was  several  years  prior  to  her 
entering  Bryn  Mawr,  but  that  she  had  always  retained 
the  excellent  impression  that  Miss  Thomas  had  made 
on  her  at  that  time. 

I  have  never  heard  her  say  an  unkind  word  of  any- 
one connected  with  this  affair.  I  have  talked  with 
several  of  the  girls  at  Bryn  Mawr.  One  in  whom  I  have 
great  confidence,  whom  I  know  very  well  and  who  has 
seen  a  great  deal  of  Margery  during  this  year,  assures 
me  that  she  is  a  high-grade,  clear-headed  girl — ^that  she 
is  positive  that  Margery  is  innocent  of  all  guilt.  Other 
girls  who  have  known  Margery  for  years  have  told  me 
the  same. 

I  am  morally  certain  that  Margery  is  absolutely  in- 
nocent and  that  she  is  well  above  the  average  in  clear- 
headed intelligence  and  in  character. 

STATEMENT  OF  THE  CASE. 

Stealing  in  January: 

On  January  22nd,  approximately  $30  was  missed 
by  various  students  in  Pembroke  West  and  reported  i-o 
Margaret  Kennard,  a  Junior  and  Head  Proctor  of  that 


5 


Hall.  This  money  was  reported  to  have  been  taken  be- 
tween the  hours  of  nine  and  ten  in  the  morning,  during 
mid  year  Biology  examination,  at  which  time  it  has 
been  stated  there  were  only  four  students  that  lived 
in  that  hall  who  were  not  absent  from  the  hall.  Suspi- 
cion centered  on  these  students,  who  were  Margery 
Barker,  a  Sophomore;  Louise  Cadot,  a  Senior,  and  two 
others. 

Suspicion  Centers  on  Margery  Barker: 

In  answer  to  a  question  from  Miss  Kennard  as  to 
whether  she  had  lost  any  money,  Margery  told  her  "No," 
but  that  evening  or  the  next  day,  she  told  Miss  Kennard 
that  she  had  discovered  that  f  11  of  hers  had  been  stolen 
sometime  during  the  day.  Miss  Kennard  states  she  im- 
mediately jumped  to  the  conclusion  that  this  was  a 
blind  on  the  part  of  Margery  and  that  Margery  was  the 
thief  who  had  taken  the  money. 

Miss  Kennard  took  into  her  confidence  Miss  Ma- 
rynia  Foot,  Miss  Louise  Cadot,  Miss  iVtterson,  the 
housekeeper,  and  one  of  the  maids.  Thereafter,  Mar- 
gery's movements  were  carefully  watched. 

Marked  Bill  Lost: 

Miss  Kennard  states  that  sometime  between  Janu- 
ary 22nd  and  March  17th  she  marked  a  $2  bill  and 
placed  it  in  a  drawer  in  her  room.  It  had  been  there 
several  weeks  prior  to  March  17th,  on  which  date  Miss 
Kennard  missed  this  bill.  She  states  that  it  disappeared 
between  the  hours  of  4 :30  and  5 :30  on  the  afternoon  of 
March  17th,  while  she  was  absent  from  her  room. 


Decoy  Attempted : 

Early  in  the  morning  of  March  23rd,  Miss  Cadot 
placed  a  f5  bill  somewhere  around  the  desk  in  Miss 
Prue  Smith's  sitting  room.  Miss  jSmith's  room  is  next 
door  to  Margery  Barker's. 

A  little  before  9  A.  M.  on  March  23rd,  Margery 
was  waiting  before  Dean  Smith's  of&ce  to  consult  with 
the  Dean  regarding  a  matter  of  cuts.  There  was  a  group 
of  about  six  girls  there  and  as  she  had  arrived  first,  she 
would  be  the  first  to  go  into  the  Dean's  office.  Miss 
Prue  Smith  of  Brooklyn,  who  roomed  next  to  Margery, 
asked  her  if  she  would  inquire  from  the  Dean  whether 
students  might  attend  an  Artists'  Exhibition  in  Phila- 
delphia that  afternoon,  or  whether  the  quarantine  regu- 
lations would  endure  throughout  vacation. 

About  ten  minutes  later  when  Margery  went  into 
the  Dean's  office,  she  neglected  to  ask  about  the  quar- 
antine regulations  and  after  consulting  with  the  Dean 
about  her  own  matters,  she  went  out.  She  then  recalled 
the  favor  asked  of  her  and  waited  her  turn  to  go  back 
into  the  Dean's  office.  While  waiting,  she  heard  that  it 
had  been  announced  in  Chapel  that  morning  that  the 
quarantine  would  endure  throughout  vacation. 

Prue  Smith's  Room : 

As  this  gave  her  the  information  that  Prue  Smith 
had  asked  her  to  secure,  Margery  went  to  Prue  Smith's 
room  to  leave  a  note  for  her,  about  9  :25  A.  M.  As  she 
walked  into  Prue  Smith's  sitting  room,  she  noticed  that 
the  desk  was  cleared  and  no  pencil  or  paper  were  on  top 
of  it,  but  that  there  was  paper  in  the  waste  basket  and 
that  a  large  drawing  board  was  leaning  against  the  desk. 
As  Margery  had  no  pencil  with  her,  she  walked  into 


Prue  Smith's  bedroom  and  looked  on  top  of  tlie  chest  of 
drawers  (over  which  there  was  no  mirror)  in  search  of 
a  pencil  'Not  seeing  one,  she  opened  the  right  hand  lop 
drawer  of  the  chest  of  drawers  and  found  a  green 
leather  hand  bag.  This  she  felt  without  opening,  ex- 
pecting to  feel  a  pencil.  There  was  no  pencil  in  it  and 
she  rei3laced  the  bag,  closed  the  drawer  and  turned  to 
leave  the  room. 

There  was  a  full  length  mirror  on  one  wall 
of  this  room  and  as  Margery  turned  to  leave  the  room, 
she  saw,  reflected  in  the  mirror,  a  girl  in  the  closet  who 
was  evidently  watching  her.  Margery  was  very  much 
surprised  but  said  "Hello"  to  the  girl,  who  proved  to 
be  Louise  Cadot.  Mis  Cadot  was  evidently  trying  to 
hide  from  Margery  and  kept  her  eyes  averted,  but  after 
a  moment's  hesitation  she  said  "Hello"  and  stepped  for- 
ward to  the  threshold  of  the  closet.  She  had  some  knit- 
ting in  her  hands  on  which  she  worked  nervously.  Mar- 
gery thought  she  would  probably  leave  the  room  ahead 
of  her,  but  as  she  made  no  move  to  do  so,  Margeiy  left 
the  room. 

About  9 :45  in  Pembroke  West,  Margery  asked  one 
of  the  other  students  if  she  saw  a  girl  hiding  in  the 
closet  of  some  one  else's  room  would  she  report  her. 
The  other  student  answered  that  she  would  talk  to  the 
other  girl  first  because,  otherwise,  she  might  get  her 
into  trouble  when  she  was  entirely  innocent  of  any 
wrong-doing.  Margery  asked  her  what  she  would  do  if 
it  was  a  Senior  who  she  did  not  know  very  well.  The 
other  girl  said  she  did  not  know. 

Asked  for  Explanations: 

At  11 :00  A.  M.  that  morning,  after  Spanish  class, 
Margery    was    called    by    a    stenographer    into    Dean 


Smitli's  office.  There  were  present :  Dean  Smith,  Louise 
Cadot,  Marynia  Foot,  Margaret  Kennard  and  a  ste- 
nographer. Margery  was  asked  to  explain  her  presence 
in  Prue  Smith's  room,  which  she  did  as  stated  above, 
but  without  mentioning  having  seen  Louise  Cadotj 
in  the  room.  She  was  told  that  she  was  one  of  four 
girls  in  Pembroke  West  who  had  no  classes  between 
nine  and  ten  in  the  morning  and  that  she  had  been  seen 
going  into  other  girls'  rooms  when  they  were  out  and 
was  asked  to  state  the  reasons.  She  said  she  would 
have  to  know  what  rooms  and  what  time,  as  she  could 
not  think  of  any  at  the  moment.  She  was  told  that  they 
could  not  tell  her  at  the  moment,  but  would  get  the  in- 
formation later.  This  interview  was  conducted  mostly 
by  Dean  Smith  and  lasted  not  more  than  eight  minutes. 

Told  Matter  Would  be  Cleared  Up  After  Vacation: 

At  12  o'clock,  after  English  class,  Margery  went 
into  Dean  Smith's  office  and  found  her  alone.  Margery 
told  Miss  Smith  that  she  was  leaving  for  home  on  the 
1 :16  train  that  day,  but  would  be  glad  to  stay  at  Bryn 
Mawr  to  clear  up  the  matter  if  she  was  under  suspicion, 
and  particularly  requested  that  the  matter  be  not  men- 
tioned to  her  mother,  whom  she  did  not  wish  to  be 
worried.  Dean  Smith  spoke  very  kindly  and  said  she 
did  not  think  it  would  be  necessary  to  tell  her  mother 
and  said  there  would  be  plenty  of  time  to  clear  the 
matter  up  after  vacation. 

Accused  of  Improperly  Visiting  Other  Girls  Rooms: 

A  few  minutes  before  12 :30  the  Laboratory  Assist- 
ant came  into  Physics  class  and  told  the  Professor  that 
Dean    Smith    wished    to    speak    to    Margery    Barker. 


9 


Margery  reached  the  Dean's  office  about  12:30  and 
found  there:  Dean  Smith,  Miss  Adair,  Miss  Foot,  Miss 
Kennard  and  a  stenographer. 

She  was  told  that  she  was  one  of  the  few  girls  free 
at  the  time  of  the  Mid  Year  Biology  Examination  when 
$40*  had  been  stolen  from  various  rooms.  She  was 
charged  with  having  been  seen  in  the  rooms  of  the  fol- 
lowing girls  at  times  during  the  preceding  two  months 
when  they  were  absent : 

1.  Margaret  Kreck  and  Elsie  Parson,  rooming  to- 
gether. 

2.  Eleanor  Brush  and  Jane  B.  Yeatman,  rooming 
together. 

3.  Prue  Smith. 

4.  Henrietta  Baldwin, 

and  was  asked  to  give  the  reasons  for  her  visits.  She 
answered  as  best  she  could  recall  at  the  moment.  She 
was  told  that  stamps  had  been  stolen  between  nine  and 
ten  o'clock  in  the  morning  from  Louise  Mearn's  room 
and  that  they  had  been  taken  from  a  hiding  place  where 
Margery  had  seen  Miss  Meam  put  them. 

Margerey  was  asked  why  on  that  morning  she  had 
visited  Miss  Bunch's  room.  She  answered  that  Mis'S 
Bunch,  a  sophomore,  was  a  friend  of  hers  and  she  had 
gone  to  tell  her  good-bye.  She  was  asked  why  she  had 
visited  Miss  Steven's  room  and  gave  a  similar  answer. 
She  was  asked  why  she  visited  Miss  Bolton's  room  and 
she  said  to  buy  some  chocolates. 

This  interview  was  conducted  principally  by  Miss 


*It  is  to  be  noted  that  of  the  f  40  named  in  this  im- 
plied accusation,  fll  had  been  stolen  from  Margery 
herself. 


10 


Foot  and  lasted  about  11  minutes,  and  Margery  was 
left  under  the  impression  that  the  investigation  would 
be  continued  after  vacation.  She  suggested  that  she 
should  remain  in  Bryn  Mawr  during  vacation  to  clear 
the  matter  up,  but  was  told  that  there  would  be  plenty 
of  time  to  clear  it  up  after  vacation. 

Incident  of  $2  Bill: 

After  this  interview,  on  her  way  back  to  Pembroke 
West,  Margery  was  overtaken  by  Margaret  Kennard, 
who  asked  her  to  come  into  her  room.  Miss  Kennard 
told  Margery  that  some  bills  were  missing  and  asked  to 
see  Margery's  money.  Margery  took  her  money  from 
her  pocket  and  Miss  Kennard  immediately  seized  a  ?2 
bill  in  Margery's  hand  and  said  it  was  hers.  Margery 
disputed  this,  stating  that  she  had  gotten  this  bill  from 
Miss  Bunch  as  change  from  the  purchase  of  a  ticket 
the  day  before.  Miss  Kennard  then  gave  her  two  one- 
dollar  bills  and  insisted  on  keeping  the  $2  bill,  without 
explaining  why  she  thought  it  was  hers.  Miss  Foot 
appeared  in  the  hall  about  this  time,  but  was  not  a  party 
to  this  occurrence.  This  interview  did  not  last  more 
than  two  minutes. 

About  1 :00  P.  M.,  on  the  way  to  her  train,  Margery 
took  her  railroad  ticket  from  her  purse  and  saw  on  the 
envelope  containing  the  ticket  the  notation,  "f48.69." 
She  immediately  realized  that  this  must  have  ibeen  what 
Miss  Bunch  had  paid  for  her  ticket;  and  deducting 
this  from  the  |50  check  used  by  Miss  Bunch,  she  knew 
she  had  made  a  mistake  in  telling  Miss  Kennard  that 
she  had  received  the  two  dollar  bill  in  change  from  Miss 
Bunch.  The  bill  given  her  by  Miss  Bunch  had  evi- 
dently been  a  f  1  bill,  which  she  had  used  in  paying  to 
have  her  trunk  taken  to  the  depot. 

11 


A  few  minutes  later,  on  lier  way  to  the  baggage 
room,  she  saw  Miss  Bunch  and  went  up  to  her,  draw- 
ing her  aside  from  the  friends  she  was  with  and  asked 
her  how  much  change  she  had  given  her  the  afternoon 
before  in  the  Pullman  envelope.  Miss  Bunch  replied 
that  there  had  been  a  little  over  a  dollar.  Miss  Bunch 
then  told  Margery  that  Miss  Kennard  had  asked  her 
if  she  had  given  Margery  a  $2  bill  in  change  after  buy- 
ing her  ticket  and  that  she  had  replied  that  there  had 
been  a  one  dollar  bill  and  some  change. 

After  checking  her  trunk,  Margery  immediately 
went  to  the  telephone  in  the  station  and  tried  to  reach 
Dean  Smith,  but  as  she  failed  to  do  so,  she  left  a  mes- 
sage that  she  was  writing  her  in  regard  to  a  mis-state- 
ment she  had  made  to  Miss  Kennard  and  that  she  would 
mail  her  an  important  letter  regarding  the  matter  be- 
fore night.  Miss  Smith  did  not  wait  to  receive  this 
letter,  but  before  leaving  Bryn  Mawr  that  night  signed 
a  recommendation  to  President  Thomas  asking  that 
Margery  be  not  permitted  to  return  to  college  for  the 
present. 

Miss  Thomas  was  away  from  Bryn  Mawr  at  the 
time  and  was  not  a  party  to  any  of  these  occurrences. 

Dismissed  for  Stealing: 

Miss  Kennard  left  for  her  home  in  Massachusetts 
on  the  afternoon  of  March  23rd  and  wrote  a  letter 
within  one  or  two  days  to  another  student,  telling  her 
that  a  marked  two-dollar  bill  which  had  been  stolen 
had  been  found  in  the  possession  of  Margery  Barker 
and  that  Margery  would  not  be  permitted  to  return  to 
school  after  vacation. 

In  the  letter  that  Margery  wrote  Miss  Smith,  she 


12 


told  her  she  had  received  the  two-dollar  note  from  a 
taxi  driver  on  the  13th  of  March  in  change  for  a  five- 
dollar  hill  and  gave  Miss  Smith  the  telephone  number 
of  the  taxicab  company.  She  also  mentioned  two  occa- 
sions when  she  had  visited  Miss  Kreck's  room  which 
she  had  not  thought  of  in  the  morning  interviews. 

Miss  Thomas  w^rote  both  to  Mrs.  Barker  and  to 
Margery  on  the  26th  of  March,  stating:  "On  account 
of  serious  circumstances  that  took  place  on  Wednesday, 
March  23rd/'  she  thought  it  would  be  undesirablo  for 
Margery  to  return  to  college  after  vacation,  but  would 
write  her  further  after  she  had  had  time  to  look  into 
the  matter.  On  April  2nd,  she  wrote  Mrs.  Barker  tell- 
ing her  positively  that  Margery  would  not  be  permitted 
to  return  to  college.  Later  Margery's  furniture  and 
other  effects  w^ere  shipped  back  to  her  home. 

Reconsideration  Refused: 

On  April  2nd  several  friends  of  Margery's  called  on 
Miss  Thomas  and  endeavored  to  prevail  on  her  to  stop, 
look  and  listen,  before  branding  Margery  as  a  thief,  as 
the  cause  of  Margery's  dismissal  was  well  known  among 
the  students  and  this  was  the  only  construction  that 
could  be  placed  on  it.  Miss  Thomas  refused  to  recon- 
sider the  matter  and  refused  the  several  appeals  made 
by  Margery's  mother  to  have  a  thorough  investigation 
made  of  the  matter  or  to  permit  Margery  to  return  to 
school. 


18 


DISCUSSION  OF  CASE.  J 

Not  Conclusive  that  Resident  Stole  Money: 

There  is  no  conclusive  evidence  that  one  of  the  stu- 
dents living  in  this  Hall  was  the  thief.  Students  from 
other  halls  run  in  and  out  of  the  different  halls  promis- 
cuously and  no  one  questions  them.  Thej  run  all  over 
the  place,  making  free  use  of  each  other's  rooms,  and 
in  some  cases  of  their  clothes.  When  something  is  lost 
they  search  each  other's  rooms,  even  in  other  halls. 

A  student  from  another  hall  has  stated  that  prior 
to  March  22nd  of  this  year  she  studied  twice  in  Miss 
Kreck's  room,  once  in  Miss  Coleman's  room,  twice  in 
Prue  Smith's  room  and  several  times  in  Miss  Bennett's 
room,  between  nine  and  ten  in  the  morning.  All  of  these 
rooms  are  in  Pembroke  West.  This  shows  clearly  that 
students  from  other  halls  frequent  that  hall  during 
that  hour  and  other  hours  of  the  day. 

A  Maid  May  Have  Been  the  Thief: 

Furthermore,  there  are  several  maids  employed  in 
Pembroke  West,  any  one  of  whom  could  readily  have 
walked  into  these  rooms  without  being  detected.  While 
it  may  be  that  a  resident  of  the  hall  was  the  thief,  there 
is  nothing  sufficiently  conclusive  to  justify  such  an  as- 
sumption. 

Evidence  of  Honesty: 

The  incident  of  opening  the  drawer  in  Prue  Smith's 
room  is  not  evidence  of  dishonesty.  On  the  contrary  it 
is  evidence  of  honesty.     A  bill  was   planted   in    Prue 


14 


Smith's  desk — ^Margery  Barker  was  asked  to  do  some- 
thing that  would  logically  and  naturally  cause  her  to 
visit  this  room.  She  did  the  logical  and  natural  thing 
and  visited  the  room.  She  did  not  "fall"  for  the  f5 
note  that  was  planted  there.  She  did  open  a  drawer 
and  take  up  a  purse  containing  money  but  did  not  take 
the  money.  She  did  not  even  open  the  purse.  This  is 
clear  evidence  that  she  was  not  looking  for  money;  but 
these  amateur  detectives  were  evidently  so  bent  on  prov- 
ing Margery  guilty  that  they  construed  conclusive  evi- 
dence of  honesty  to  be  evidence  of  guilt. 

Stamps: 

Louise  Mearns,  a  Junior,  told  Miss  Kennard  and 
told  President  Thomas  that  she  had  never  said  the 
stamps  disappeared  between  nine  and  ten  o'clock.  She 
told  President  Thomas  that  she  had  seen  a  great  deal 
of  Margery  this  year  and  last  and  that  such  a  thing  as 
she  was  accused  of  could  not  be  true.  She  also  did  her 
best  to  impress  on  President  Thomas  that  going  into 
other  people's  rooms  was  not  proof  of  anything. 

Girls'  Rooms  Visited: 

In  regard  to  the  matter  of  visiting  other  girls' 
rooms.  Margery  Barker's  relations  with  these  girls, 
whose  rooms  she  visited,  was  as  follows : 

1.  Margaret  Kreck  and  Elsie  Parson,  roommates. 
The  former  is  a  Junior  and  the  latter  a  Fresii- 
man.    She  has  knoT\Ti  both  for  six  years. 

2.  Eleanor  Brush  and  Jane  B.  Yeatman,  room- 
mates. She  had  known  these  girls  about  a 
year.  Miss  Brush  is  quite  a  friend  of  hers  and 
has  asked  Margery  to  visit  her  this  Spring  and 


stay  at  her  home  this  June  at  the  time  of  Miss 
Brush's  wedding. 

3.  Henrietta  Baldwin  is  a  Senior  whom  she  has 
known  for  three  years  and  with  whom  she  is 
on  terms  of  close  friendship.  Miss  Baldwin 
asked  Margery  to  room  next  to  her  this  year. 

4.  Prue  Smith  is  a  Junior  who  roomed  next  to 
Margery  and  whom  she  has  known  for  over  a 
year. 

All  of  these  girls,  except  Miss  Baldwin,  have  sitting 
rooms,  and  aside  from  the  regular  practice  of  the  girls 
in  visiting  each  others  rooms,  it  is  entirely  natural  for 
one  like  Margery,  occupying  a  single  room  and  needing 
to  study  between  nine  and  ten  in  the  morning,  to  occupy 
someone  else's  room  while  waiting  for  her  own  room  to 
be  cleaned  by  the  maids. 

No  one,  knowing  of  her  relations  with  these  girls 
and  familiar  with  the  common  practice  of  girls  visiting 
each  other's  rooms  at  Bryn  Mawr,  would  be  justified 
in  having  any  suspicions  aroused  because  of  her  visiting 
the  rooms  of  these  acquaintances. 

Protest  from  Girls : 

Early  in  April,  Miss  Brush,  Miss  Ann  Rupert  and 
Miss  Louise  Mearns  went  to  see  President  Thomas  on 
behalf  of  themselves  and  Margaret  Kreck,  Eleanor  Par- 
sons and  Jane  Belle  Yeatman  and  declared  to  Miss 
Thomas  that  Margery's  visiting  their  rooms  was  no 
proof  of  anything  and  that  she  was  welcome  to  visit 
their  rooms  and  borrow  anything  they  had  at  any  time 
she  chose.  These  girls  did  everything  in  their  power 
but  were  unable  to  prevail  on  Miss  Thomas  to  give 
Margery's  case  a  "fair  consideration." 


16 


President  Thomas  stated  to  these  girls  that  she 
thought  the  stealing  was  still  going  on.  This  has  been 
confirmed  from  other  sources.  ' 

Incident  of  the  $2.00  Bill: 

On  March  23rd  Margaret  Kennard  went  to  Dean 
Smith  and  showed  her  a  |2  bill  which,  Miss  Kennard 
stated,  she  had  marked  several  weeks  before  and  placed 
in  a  drawer  in  her  room.  She  asserted  that,  between 
4 :30  and  5 :30  P.  M.  on  the  afternoon  of  March  17th, 
the  bill  was  stolen  from  her  drawer  and  that  she  had 
just  taken  it  from  Margery  Barker.  Therefore,  Miss 
Kennard  reasoned,  Margery  Barker  had  stolen  it  and 
this,  taken  in  connection  with  the  fact  that  Margery  was 
suspected  of  having  stolen  other  money,  and  the  fact  that 
Margery  Barker  had  gone  into  Prue  Smith's  room  that 
morning,  had  walked  past  a  desk  where  there  was 
money  and  had  not  taken  it,  and  had  picked  up  a  purse 
containing  money  without  opening  it  or  taking  any 
money  from  it;  this — all  taken  together — proved  con- 
clusively that  Margery  was  the  thief  who  had  been 
operating  in  Pembroke  West  and  that  she  should  be  dis- 
missed from  college.  She  stated  that  Margery  had  told 
her  that  she  had  got  this  $2  bill  in  change  from  Miss 
Bunch,  but  that  Miss  Bunch  had  since  told  Miss  Ken- 
nard she  only  gave  Margery  a  one  dollar  bill.  To  her, 
this  w^as  further  proof  of  Margery's  dishonesty.  She 
did  not  stoj)  to  consider  that  in  the  six  days  that  had 
elapsed  since  she  thought  she  had  lost  the  bill,  there 
was  ample  time  for  the  bill  to  have  w^andered  all  over 
college  and  all  over  the  tow^n  of  Bryn  Mawr. 


17 


The  Verdict: 

Notwithstanding  the  inadequacy  of  such  evidence, 
Miss  Smith  accepted  Miss  Kennard's  point  of  view. 
Without  waiting  to  hear  from  Margery,  without  seeing 
her,  and  without  any  teacher  or  oflBlcial  of  the  College 
discussing  the  matter  with  Margery,  Miss  Smith  wrote 
President  Thomas  recommending  Margery's  dismissal 
from  college.  Before  Miss  Thomas  even  received  such 
a  recommendation,  Margaret  Kennard  wrote  another 
student,  telling  her  that  Margery  had  been  found  with  a 
marked  bill  on  her  and  would  not  be  permitted  to  re- 
turn to  College. 

When  Miss  Smith  received  the  letter  from  Margery 
telling  her  that  the  latter  had  made  a  mistake  as  to 
where  she  had  obtained  this  |2  bill,  that  she  had  re- 
ceived it  from  a  taxi  driver,  and  telling  her  how  to  ver- 
ify this  from  the  taxi  driver  himself,  no  attempt  was 
made  to  investigate  this,  because  Margery  said  this  bill 
was  received  from  the  taxi  driver  on  March  13th  and 
Miss  Kennard  had  said  she  lost  the  f2  bill  in  question 
on  the  17th  of  March. 

Premature  Conclusions: 

Evidently,  from  the  time  Miss  Kennard  jumped 
to  the  conclusion  that  Margery  was  guilty  in  January, 
she  took  into  her  confidence  these  other  people  who  have 
been  mentioned  and  their  entire  efforts  have  been  cen- 
tered not  on  finding  the  real  thief,  but  on  proving  that 
Margery  was  the  thief.  She  was  the  only  one  of  several 
girls,  who  might  have  been  suspected,  whose  money  was 
examined  before  she  left  college. 

Every  time  she  visited  a  room,  the  worst  possible 
construction  was  put  on  it  with  the  result  that  these 
amateur  detectives  worked  themselves  into  the  frame 

18 


of  mind  that  she  was  guilty  and  all  that  was  necessary 
was  to  prove  her  guilt.  On  the  23rd  of  March  they 
planted  a  |5.00  bill  and  made  a  deliberate  attempt  to 
trap  Margery.  This  failed  so  far  as  any  wrong  doing 
on  Margery's  part  was  concerned,  although  she  did  what 
was  expected  of  her,  so  far  as  any  normal,  obliging, 
honest  girl  would  have  done.  She  went  to  Prue  Smith's 
room  and  endeavored  to  leave  a  note.  However,  these 
amateur  detectives  could  not  see  this  thing  in  its  proper 
light.  Their  brains  were  working  overtime  to  prove 
Margery  guilty  and  even  evidence  of  innocence  they  con- 
strued as  evidence  of  guilt. 

What  Probably  Did  Occur: 

^„  As  there  is  conclusive  evidence  that  Margery  was 
nat/Jn  the  hall  during  the  time  when  Miss  Kennard  says 
the  bill  disappeared,  then  Margery  could  not  have  taken 
it.  However,  as  the  taxi  driver  has  stated  in  writing 
that  he  did  give  Margery  a  |2.00  bill  on  the  13th  of 
March,  and  as  Margery  has  no  recollection  of  receiving 
any  other  $2.00  bill  and  there  is  no  record  of  her  hav- 
ing received  any  other  |2.00  bill,  then  it  seems  probable 
that  Miss  Kennard's  bill  disappeared  prior  to  March 
13th,  reached  the  taxi  driver  in  some  way  and,  through 
him,  came  into  Margery's  possession.  This  is  all  on  the 
assumption  that  the  hill  taken  by  Miss  Kennard  from 
Margery  was  really  the  one  that  the  former  had  marked 
and  lost — an  assumption  resting  entirely  upon  Miss 
Kennard^s  unsupported  statements.  It  should  be  noted 
that  from  the  date  the  bill  was  missed  by  Misis  Kennard 
every  expenditure  made  by  Margery  was  watched  by  the 
amateur  detectives,  which  precludes  the  possibility  of 
her  having  spent  the  bill  recei\'ed  from  the  taxi  driver 
during  that  period. 


19 


It  is  more  than  probable  that  Miss  Kennard  put 
the  12.00  bill  in  her  drawer  and  for  some  days  or  weeks 
watched  it  carefully,  hoping  and  expecting  to  see  it  dis- 
appear, but  as  it  lay  there  for  some  time  and  nothing 
happened  she  became  weary  of  her  watchfulness  and 
ceased  to  inspect  it  and  then  some  day  prior  to  March 
13th,  it  was  either  stolen  or  possibly  she  may  have  in- 
advertently used  it  herself.  However,  she  did  not  miss 
it  until  March  17th,  and  then  immediately  jumped  to 
the  conclusion  that  it  had  been  stolen  on  that  day  dur- 
ing the  athletic  meet  when  she  and  many  of  the  other 
girls  were  out  of  the  hall.  As  Margery  was  lame  at  that 
time,  she  assumed  that  Margery  was  in  the  hall  and 
had  taken  the  money. 

Unreliability  of  Miss  Kennard's  Statements: 

There  are  indications  that  Miss  Kennard^s  memory 
is  not  of  the  best  and  therefore  her  statements  are  not 
entirely  reliable.  The  mind  of  a  girl  of  twenty  does  not 
operate  as  an  instrument  of  precision  and,  therefore, 
her  evidence  in  matters  as  serious  as  this  should  be  taken 
only  after  careful  investigation  and  analysis. 

In  one  interview,  Miss  Thomas  stated  that  Miss 
Kennard  had  said  that  the  money  had  been  stolen  be- 
tween 4 :30  and  5 :30  on  March  17th.  In  a  later  inter- 
view Miss  Thomas  stated  that  Miss  Kennard  had 
changed  her  statement  and  had  asserted  that  the  money 
had  been  stolen  between  4 :30  and  6 :30  that  afternoon. 
In  conversation  with'  another  student  regarding  this 
matter,  Miss  Kennard  was  very  indefinite  as  to  the  time 
the  |2.00  bill  disappeared,  but  stated  that  "she  thought 
it  must  have  disappeared  during  the  athletic  meet  on 
March  17.'^ 


20 


Miss  Kennard  further  stated  tliat  Miss  BuncL.  ap- 
proached Margery  first  at  the  station  and  told  her  she 
had  not  given  her  a  |2.00  bill,  whereas  Miss  Bunch  has 
written  a  letter  stating  that  Margery  approached  her 
first.  This  is  another  indication  of  inaccuracy  on  the 
part  of  Miss  Kennard. 

Had  Miss  Kennard  taken  the  precaution  of  making 
careful  inquiry  among  Margery's  associates  she  would 
have  learned  beyond  any  question  of  doubt  that  Mar- 
gery was  not  in  the  hall  at  the  time  she  thinks  this 
money  was  stolen. 


ATTITUDE  OF  THE  COLLEGE: 

The  college  apparently  adopted  the  recommenda- 
tions of  Miss  Kennard  and  her  associates  without  any 
investigation  or  analysis  as  to  how  they  arrived  at  their 
conclusions,  dismissed  Margery  on  one-sided,  circum- 
stantial, prejudiced  evidence,  without  even  discussing 
the  matter  with  any  one  but  those  who  had  participated 
in  building  up  the  case  against  her,  giving  her  no  oppor- 
tunity for  a  hearing. 

Before  taking  final  action,  it  is  stated,  the  college 
looked  into  Margery's  past  record  and  secured  data 
covering  almost  her  entire  life — all  to  her  credit.  But 
even  this  did  not  cause  the  college  to  hesitate  or  to  an- 
alyze the  matter  at  all  before  condemning  her.  It  is 
therefore  proper  to  assume  that  they  were  looking  for 
evidence  of  guilt,  not  of  honesty,  something  to  back  up 
their  original  assumption  that  Margery  was  a  thief. 
Not  finding  it,  they  threw  this  evidence  into  the  discard. 


21 


Bolstering  a  Weak  Position : 

Since  the  question  has  been  raised  as  to  the  pro- 
priety of  Margery's  dismissal,  the  college,  instead  of 
facing  the  issue  frankly  and  endeavoring  to  learn  the 
truth,  has  "clamped  the  lid  down  tight.''  It  has  in- 
structed students  not  to  discuss  the  matter  nor  to  sign 
any  papers  on  the  subject,  and  has  refused  to  permit 
Margery  or  her  friends  outside  of  college  to  interview 
any  of  the  girls  concerned  in  her  dismissal.  It  evidently 
prevented  Miss  Foot  from  keeping  an  appointment  to 
see  her. 

In  an  effort  to  bolster  up  a  weak  position,  the  col- 
lege has  stated  that  there  were  other  reasons  for  her 
dismissal  that  made  her  an  undesirable  student.  The 
college  is  responsible  for  the  natural  consequence  of 
its  own  acts.  The  natural  consequence  of  dismissing 
this  girl'  at  this  time,  under  the  circumstances,  is  to 
brand  her  as  a  thief.  The  entire  student  body  is  ac- 
quainted with  the  actions  taken  by  the  college  in  its 
efforts  to  find  the  thief.  It  knows  that  Margery  was 
under  suspicion.  Regardless  of  any  other  reasons  given 
by  the  college,  the  natural  construction  that  has  been 
and  will  be  placed  on  the  college's  action  in  not  allow- 
ing Margery's  return  is  that  she  has  been  adjudged 
guilty  of  theft. 

None  of  the  other  "reasons"  which  have  been  ad- 
vanced for  her  dismissal  are  based  on  facts,  but  are 
largely  matters  of  opinion  or  guesses,  evidently  worth- 
less, introduced  to  support  a  weak  case  built  on  in- 
tangible evidence — ^the  kind  of  evidence  which  was  used 
for  hanging  women  as  witches  some  years  ago  in  Massa- 
chusetts— the  kind  of  evidence  that  is  sometimes  used  to 
damage  the  reputation  of  good  people  in  small  village 
communities. 

22 


^'Reasons": 

Among  these  "reasons",  it  is  stated  that  she  has  a 
tendency  to  he  depressed  more  than  most  people.  Sym- 
pathetic and  sensitive  people  are  at  times  inclined  to  be 
depressed  more  than  the  phlegmatic  sort.  The  "Great 
Carpenter"  was  known  as  a  "Man  of  Sorrows." 

Another  "reason"  is  that  she  had  frequent  head- 
aches. Many  good  people  have  headaches.  Margery's 
headaches  were  due  to  sinus  trouble,  which  has  been 
cured. 

It  is  further  stated  that  to  reinstate  Margery  would 
not  be  "fair"  to  the  other  girls — that  it  would  injure 
them  in  some  way.  The  truth  is  just  the  reverse  of  this. 
Her  dismissal  as  it  has  been  conducted  is  unfair  to  all 
the  students  and  is  an  injury  to  them,  in  their  relations 
to  the  College,  that  can  only  be  amended  by  her  proper 
reinstatement. 

She  has  also  been  accused  of  extravagance,  espe- 
cially in  the  matter  of  horseback  riding.  The  total 
amount  of  money  expended  by  her  since  September  for 
horse  back  riding  was  less  than  |15.00.  It  has  been 
intimated  that  she  was  so  extravagant  that  her  allow- 
ance could  not  cover  her  expenditures  and  therefore  she 
had  to  steal.  Those  responsible  for  such  an  argument 
did  not  stop  to  consider  that  all  the  money  stolen  dur- 
ing the  year,  if  added  to  her  monthly  allowance,  would 
not  have  been  sufficient  to  make  an  appreciable  differ- 
ence in  her  expenditures.  It  would  have  increased  her 
total  revenue  for  the  school  year  by  less  than  four  per 
cent,  and  increased  her  daily  spending  power  from  #3.33 
to  13.44. 

All  of  this  goes  to  show  that  there  has  been  a  ten- 
dency to  manufacture  evidence  against  this  girl  out  of 
trivial  gossip. 

23 


Responsibility  of  the  College : 

The  clear  duty  of  a  college  is  constructive.  It  is 
supposed  to  help,  not  to  hinder,  and  above  all  it  should 
protect  its  students  and  especially  their  most  valuable 
asset,  their  reputations  and  characters. 

Margery  Barker  entered  Bryn  Mawr  having  a  good 
moral  reputation.  It  was  one  of  the  entrance  require- 
ments. By  the  careless  way  in  which  this  matter  has 
been  handled  her  reputation  has  been  seriously  injured 
and  her  future  standing  with  the  public  is  bound  to  be 
injured  unless  this  matter  is  cleared  up  immediately. 


SUMMARY. 

Bryn  Mawr  College  has  permitted  one  student  to 
serve  in  the  many  sided  capacities  of  Chief  of  Police, 
Detective,  Prosecuting  Attorney,  Judge  and  Jury  and 
to  pronounce  a  fellow- student  guilty  of  theft. 

The  College  has  held  a  star  chamber  session  and 
approved  the  finding  of  this  combination  Chief  of  Po- 
lice, Detective,  Prosecuting  Attorney,  Judge  and  Jury, 
without  giving  the  condemned  girl  a  hearing;  without 
a  single  teacher  or  officer  of  the  school  taking  the  trouble 
to  discuss  the  matter  with  her  and  without  making  a 
serous  attempt  to  verify  the  evidence  which  was  known 
to  be  of  a  very  doubtful,  prejudiced  and  circumstantial 
character.  By  this  act,  the  College  has  done  a  serious 
injury  to  one  of  its  students  and  has  broken  faith  with 
the  mother  who  has  entrusted  her  daughter  to  its  care. 

Regardless  of  the  formal  reasons  given  for  her  dis- 
missal and  of  all  technicalities  in  the  matter,  the  cir- 
cumstances and  handling  of  the  case  have  been  such  as 


24 


to  give  the  dismissal  of  Margery  Barker  the  effect  of 
publicly  branding  her  as  a  thief. 

The  offense  for  which  she  is  unjustly  punished  was 
not  of  a  character  that  endangered  the  life  of  any  indi- 
vidual or  involved  the  risk  of  serious  loss  of  property — 
therefore  there  was  no  reason  or  excuse  for  hasty  action 
without  conclusive  evidence. 

The  evidence  on  which  this  young  girl  was  con- 
victed could  not  have  stood  in  any  criminal  court  in  the 
land  against  a  prisoner  at  the  bar  with  a  known  crim- 
inal record. 

The  arbitrary,  star  chamber  methods  used  in  brand- 
ing this  girl  as  a  thief  on  inadequate  circumstantial  evi- 
dence presented  by  a  fellow-student,  without  giving  the 
accused  girl  a  chance  even  to  discuss  the  matter  for 
which  she  was  dismissed  w^ith  one  of  the  teachers  or 
officers  of  the  school,  is  contrary  to  all  Anglo-Saxon 
institutions  and  traditions  and  is'  a  serious  blot  on  the 
college  management. 

It  is  impossible  for  the  College  to  apply  a  full  and 
complete  remedy  for  the  wrong  which  has  already  been 
done  Miss  Barker.  A  partial  remedy,  however,  is  pos- 
sible. That  remedy  is  to  ask  her  to  return  to  College 
immediately  and  to  announce  publicly  to  the  student 
body  that,  through  a  serious  mistake,  a  great  wrong  has 
been  done  her.  Nothing  short  of  such  action  will  serve 
to  mitigate  the  wrong  already  done  and  even  this  will 
not  make  amends  for  the  mental  anguish  and  suffering 
to  which  she  and  her  family  have  been  put.  Not  only 
is  such  action  a  duty  to  Miss  Barker  and  her  family, 
but  it  is  needed  to  strengthen  and  improve  the  standing 
of  the  college  with  its  student  body  and  with  all  others 
who  are  familiar  with  the  facts. 


9'r 


t: 


April  19,   1921. 


Miss  M.  Carey  Thomas,  President, 
Bryn  Mava-  Collcige, 
Bryn  Mav/r,  ?enna. 

My  dear  Miss  Thomas: 


before  due  to  n^  .^slZ  "^lulst^^J^'  'T^lJ^'  ""'l  '^""  acKnuwled,.d 
copies  of  your   two  iKtt t^   rn  f  J^^^^'^f^*     ^   ^^ank  you  for  sending  me  the 

None  Of  thes/ie:  e       I :  ^JX^ofthrsr/'*"  ''"'^"^^*  "^  ^^^^^  ^-^• 
you  have   issued  to   the   student  wo, ^f.         ^  ^"^^      ^^"  statement  which 

by  them  as  meaning     hat  Mis^  Barker;  '."?".'''  '^^oumstanoes,  be  construed 
possibly  be  due   .f  innct^riJl!;::  ;,::  LT^ftter^L^"   ^^^   "^  ^'^^^  ^  ^^^ 

this  matter  and  permtt  mll'T^^-l  to'^^eturn  L^'^'i  f  '°  ^^  ^'^'^  ^°  reconsider 
must  realize  that   T   An  r,nl\-t  .         1     return  to  college  imnediately.     you 
v/ould.    rherefore     Lfm^o   tM     X'^^^e^^-'  ^"  associate  with  a  thief  Ind 
ious  v.ong  had  tcerLrMisl  Ba4r'  ''  '  '''  "'  '"'  ''"'  '  "'" 

take   had  been  made,  v;h^or-.;rd\epirrL-ett:d'''"H   '"'^  *'"'  "  ^^^^""=  ^^^- 
return  to  coilegu  at  once     vlr  !?;^  rc.£,iettfcd,  and  that  Miss  Barker  was   to 

and  the  approvaTof  all  S; hers  who  ^"^1^"^!  "''"'"'^  ^''"^^^^   '''''  ^^^-^^^ 

this  matter  in  voui-  atsp^"""  ^ill^appen,   tut  the  serious  mistake  in  handling 

be  excusab  e   if"^  r.  r     ui::j;t   S  ^.T     '"  ^"%'  ''''''   ''  '''''  ^^'^^'^  --'" 
once.  resultant   injury  was.   as  far  as  possible,   corrected  at 

have    taken,   you  viu'nof"  f"  inlJ'Tr  '  '"''"  ''"   """'^  """^'^  P^^^^i""  ^"-^ 
on  Bryn  Havr!  Vnis  matt  .r   i«     ?''         ^'''  ^''^''"^'"  ^"'  ^'^^^   ^^^^1^°^  fireat   injury 
but   .L.,.  o^^TlJ^l^JZi^s^^'l^J^  v.-hero  Brynliwr   is  k^o-L", 
family  no  alternative  tut   to  si^hn?  fSi        v.      f^^^^*^""  leaves  her  and  her 
facta.     It  is  true    that   l.hn^         f     ^  publicity  is  given  to  ail  of  the 

but  you  have  doL  wo^t  /J^utl^e'herd"  iT^'^^'T''''  "^"'"^^  ""'''  barker, 
the  maximum  penalty  without^ivIL-  ^^^       star-chamter   seosion  and  inflicted 

Without  firs?  taki;;;tL'^"o^ut^\^^1:l^t:^s^y";i:Lrf.'^'^"'  ^^^^^^^^^  -^ 


Of  playing  fast  and  loose  wifh^rhe^^Lr'  ^'^''  '^'  ^'^^^^^  in  the  positi 

trusted  to   its  care  a^rvir^ii'  aoinr.^f^  "'J  '"'"''  ""'  "  ^^^^  ^'''  ' 
ttuu  virtually  aoing  all   in  its  pov/er   to  wi-eck  her  lif, 


Miss  M.  Carey  Thomas. 
April  19,  1921. 


«  2  « 


It  is  possible  that  technically  you  have,  as  you  told 
me,  the  power  to  deiaand  any  student  to  leave  the  college  without  stating 
your  reasons,  but  you  have  no  moral  right  to  do  so  under  the  circumstances 
and  I  firmly  believe  that  if  these  people'  take  this  matter  into  court,  as 
I  certainly  would  do  if  it  were  my  daughter,  it  will  not  only  reflect  to 
the  discredit  of  the  college  but  will  cost  it  a  substantial  amount  of 
money . 

The  fact  that  before  rsy   daughter  had  definitely  decided 
to  enter  Bryn  Mawr  and  before  I  had  any  direct  interest  there,  I  endorsed 
and  contributed  to  the  inovemant  in  this  corimunity  for  an  endor-ment  fund, 
established  my  status  as  a  friend  of  t  he  college.  As  such  and  as  one 
directly  interested  through  the  enrollment  of  my  daughter  as  a  student, 
I  feel  it  my  right  and  my  duty  to  ask  your  serious  reconsideration  of  an 
action  which,  under  all  the  circumstances,  must  tend  to  shake  the  confi- 
dence in  the  college  of  those  who  are  familiar  with  the  matter. 

If  the  God  of  the  Universe  takes  thought  of  even  the 
sparrow  that  falls  to  the  ground,  it  would  seem  that  the  President  of  a 
college  can  afford  to  be  certain  beyond  the  peradventure  of  a  doubt 
before  fixing  a  permanent  and  disgraceful  stigma  upon  one  of  her  students. 


Very  trvly   yours, 
H.  B.  Rust 


April  5,  1921, 


Miss  M.  Carey  Thomas, 
president,  Brjoi  Mav/r  College, 
Bryn  Liavr,  penna. 


My  dear  Miss  Thomas: 


Referring  to  my  conversation  v/ith  you  Saturday,  regardless  of  who 
is  to  blame  and  of  all  technicalities  to  the  contrary,  in  the  opinion  of  the 
student  body  at  Bryn  Hav/r,  one  of  their  number  has  been  placed  on  trial  for  a 
serious  offense.  The  maximum  penalty  for  one  found  guilty  of  such  an  offense 
is,  I  judge,  dismissal  from  college.  If  this  young  girl  is  not  permitted  to 
return  to  college,  in  the  opinion  of  the  public,  she  will  have  been  found 
guilty  and  will  have  received  the  maximum  penalty  for  such  an  offense. 

You  cannot  afford  to  punish  her  as  though  she  were  guilty,  on  incom- 
plete evidence,  as  you  thereby  run  the  risk  of  doing  serious  permanent  injury 
to  a  young  girl  entrusted  to  your  care.  You  v/ould  also'  set  a  low  standard  of 
right  and  wrong  for  the  other  students  by  failing  to  impress  on  them  the  nec- 
essity of  always  being  just. 

Sue  is  one  of  three  things: 

1.  V/holly  innocent. 

2.  Morally  deficient, 

3.  Mentally  deficient. 

If  she  is  guilty  through  moral  deficiency  and  is  permitted  to  return 
because  of  incomplete  evidence,  within  a  short  time,  vdth  a  recurrence  of  the 
offense,  the  case  would  be  proven  and  you  could  then  properly  dismiss  her.  On 
the  other  hand,  if  the  offense  is  not  committed  again,  you  v/ill  have  accomplish- 
ed her  reform.  If  she  is  guilty  because  of  mental  deficiency,  it  v/ill  occur 
again  and  you  could  then  dismiss  her.  The  offense  is  not  of  a  character  that 
endangers  the  life  of  any  individual  or  involves  the  risk  of  serious  loss  of 
property.  Therefore,  there  is  no  reason  for  action  without  conclusive  evidence. 

If  she  is  not  permitted  to  return  now,  you  v/ill  Le  taking  substan- 
tially, the  position  that  it  is  preferable  to  risk  vn-ecking  the  standing  and 
character  of  a  young  girl  rather  than  to  risk  losing  a  small  amount  of  money. 
There  is  no  other  rational  way  to  view  this  thing. 

If,  for  reasons  other  than  those  under  discussion  you  do  not  consider 
her  a  desirable  person  to' be  retained  as  a  member  of  your  student  body,  you 
cannot  affora  at  this  time  to  dismiss  her,  as  you  thereby  inflict  punishment 
and  its  consequent  stigma  for  an  offense  of  a  very  different  kind. 


Ml  a a  ghoroas; 

I  wish  to  make   it  clear   to  you  that  my  daughter   is  not  responsible 
for  my  taking  this  matter  up  with  yoti*     The   little  girl  under  suspicion 
telegraphed  me  direct  and  asked  me  to  ivlre  you,   but  I  thought  I  would 
prefer  to  go  to  Bryn  Hblmt  and  talk  to  you. 

I  was  convinced  that   there  was  no  conclusive  evidence  against 
the  child  and  that   is  why  I  asked  for  a  fev;  minutes  of  your  time.     I  did 
not  for  a  moment  desire  to   interfere  with  your  affairs,   but  did  feel   that 
if  a  totally  disinterested  person  oould  take  tv;o  days  of  his  time   in  an 
endeavor  to  assist   in  securing  justice  for  one  of  your  students  v.  ith  whom 
he  had  only  a  casi;al  acouaintance  that  you  oould  v/ell  afford  to  discuss 
the  matter  with  him  for  a  few  minutes. 


Yours  very  truly, 
(Signed)         H«  B-  Rust 


